I'm a passionate science educator and communicator currently living in Melbourne, Australia. I have previously worked in a number of UK independent schools.
I publish videos about physics, for VCE, IGCSE, A-level and IB, as well as technology, teaching and ICT tips.
This is better than all the science teachers I had in high school combined. School is such a hostile learning environment. It’s all about being popular.
It sounds simple, except that in history, Kinetic Energy formula is the one that is used to derive the formula for Work. Ask yourself this: why Work=Fd?
sir please tell me how u got the velocity as 2m/s at 16:01 since when u say the truck velocity slowed down by 2m/s isnt 2000kg supposed to multiplied by (10-2) since its initial velocity is 10m/s thus after it is slowed by 2m/s is suppoesed to be 8m/s right sir please sir help me our i dont undertsand it @benaryder
Yes, but the physical explanation of the 1/2 in the kinetic energy equation emanates from Newtons third law, action & reaction of force. If a force operates (creates acceleration) in one direction, the same amount of force always operates (creates acceleration) in the opposite direction. No exceptions in this universe. Mathematical explanations/derivations only contain the created kinetic energy in one of the directions, but the total created kinetic energy from F = m • a is m • v^2 (without the 1/2). Nothing strange about it! Much more interesting to reflect on is that release of absolute energy in the universe, for example in an explosion (release of binding energy in molecules), or release of atomic energy, results in relative kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is always only relative. So, where did the real absolute energy go (it can't have disappeared) ? Relative kinetic energy is no exchange/compensation of energy to the universe as a whole, from the absolute energy (E = m • c^2). The answer is, the absolute energy was used to slow down time, to slow down the rate of change in all the accelerated atoms involved in the process. Time dilation is physical, and happens during acceleration phases of matter through (or against) the quantum vacuum in space. Physical time dilation does not happen during constant relative motions (acceleration is an absolute motion). It takes energy to slow down physical time (which emanates of rates from change in atoms), how a brain thinks about time (psychological time) is something completely different.
The derivation assumes constant acceleration, but the result holds for any instantaneous velocity. This derivation therefore avoids any challenging calculus.
Do we know the reason that small elements realease energy when fused, but large elements release when the break apart. You explained clearly that they do , but not the reason they do.
I believe 2 protons and 2 neutrons has an especially high binding energy, and makes up a very stable chunk of nuclear matter. This might explain why an alpha particle is emitted from the nucleus for very large nuclei. Note that the strong force is actually *repulsive* at very close distances.
@@benaryder H-3 (tritium) should also have a strong binding energy as there are 3 nucleons contributing binding force, but only one proton so no em repulsive force. Yet it is unstable and decays. Perhaps there is more going with nuclear binding on than simple offsetting forces( binding and em).
I understand the strong force(inside the nucleons) gets stronger with distance like spring or rubber band, and is responsible for confinement of the quarks. But here we are talking about distances less than 1 fm. Outside the nucleons( distances = or greater than 1 fm) the nuclear binding force holds the nucleons bound together offsetting the em repulsive force of positive charged protons. So, if you have two protons and no netrons in a nucleus (ie, He-2) then you can measure the offset of em and binding force to determine their ratios. If He-2 exists at all. If it doesn't, could that be because the em reulsion is greater than the binding force attraction? And just how close are the two.?
If He-2 exists it would be clear that the binding force (aka residual strong force) is stronger than the em repuslive force. How much stronger or weaker is it? The strong force inside the nucleons is approx. 137 times stronger than the em force.
James Joule defined energy as 'the mechanical equivalent of heat'. He noticed that when you moved a force through a fluid, that fluid heated up. By defining force × distance as energy, he could then measure the thermal energy in the fluid, and then establish the connection between thermal energy and different substances. The law of conservation of energy that he established states that the mechanical energy supplied = the thermal energy given to the complete system.
Your videos require rank tags and fully optimized title descriptions for SEO purposes, as your current score is 0%. For your video to go viral, it's essential to use high-ranking keywords and promote it organically to your targeted audience.
wow i was just studying science for my checkpoint on education perfect and they suggested this vid…. i love the anologies and the music- where are clancy and campbell now? 😂
The result is applicable at any given speed, no matter what acceleration took place to reach that speed, even though the process uses constant acceleration. A more thorough treatment involves differential calculus, but the idea of this simplified explanation is that it is easily understood by most high-school physics students.
Nahh my physics teacher so dead i asked him this and he said “dont worry about that” but this man took it upon himself to teach it in a way that an 11 yr old could understand. Respect.
More than a decade later and still helping igcse students. I have my mock exam tomorrow and this channel is a great edexcel revision source- hats off to you sir! I hope you find yourself well in life.
Hi Ben, I have a problem and hope you can help. When I press “Share as link”, outlook gave me the link instead of an attachment. Do you know if there’s any way to set it to an attachment by default?
